Fed dictator Bernanke needs to be toppled

[notesdev]

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Fed boss Ben Bernanke is the most dangerous human on earth, far more dangerous than Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s 30-year dictator, ever was. Bernanke rules a monetary dictatorship that will trigger the coming third meltdown of the 21st century.

But this reign of economic terror will end.

Just as Mubarak was blind to the economic needs of the masses and democratic reforms, Bernanke is blind to the easy-money legacy that’s set the stage for revolution, turning the rich into super rich while the middle class stagnates and peanuts trickle down to the poor.

Warning, Egypt also had a huge wealth gap before its revolution. Bernanke is the final egomaniac in America’s bubbling 30-year wealth gap, where the top 1% went from owning 9% of America’s wealth to owning 23% during this dictatorship.

Bernanke’s ruling ideology is the culmination of a 30-year economic war that has forged together Reaganomics for the super rich, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s toxic allegiance to Wall Street, the extreme Ayn Rand’s capitalist dogma, culminating in the toxic bailouts of Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, two Wall Street Trojan Horses corrupting government from within.

... continued@: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-dictator-bernanke-needs-to-be-toppled-2011-02-15

[Buzz Clik]

1. "Most dangerous human on earth." I guess if the only people you know are economists...

... and you really hate Bernanke, then maybe. For me, I'm labeling this as a bit of hyperbole.

[jtuck004]

3. My first clue was when I read "reign of economic terror".

Having the Bernank at the Fed is comparable with the Chicago Schools influence on the people who shaped economic
policy in Chile, '73-'77?

How silly. That could never happen here...

...
"The economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially caused several economic indicators to decline for Chile's lower classes.<9> Between 1970 and 1989 , there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%.<10> Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average.<10><11> The massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment, which averaged 26% during the worldwide economic slump of 1982–1985 <12> and eventually peaked at 30%."
...

Thank you Wikipedia.

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

2. This guy works for faux; check out marketwatch while you're at it. nt

[SDuderstadt]

4. "Fed dictator Bernanke"

Unbelievably stupid claim

[Pit Stains]

5. Most dangerous Americans..

Rupert Murdoch and Boehner

[vert1276]

6. turning the rich into super rich while the middle class stagnates and peanuts trickle down to the po

how is the Fed or Bernake making the rich more rich?

[howaboutme]

7. They all waltz hand in hand along with Bernanke and Geithner

The uber "rich" really are the financiers of Wall Street. They represent the uber rich in America. That group of wheeler dealers skimming off trillions from our economy for producing nothing of real tangible worth except "money" for themselves is where the uber rich of America do their deed.

They are a club of insiders and Bernanke is their partner who provides advance policy info and covers their backside while ensuring that they are well served with cheap money covered by US tax payer obligations. Remember these guys? They fxxked us once, and then again and then they walked merrily away with the spoils and illgotten profits with only a scolding from Obama and Congress. Now they want our Social Security and they will get it. QE2 was Bernankes gift horse to make sure the bubbble keeps bubbling and stock market rising. We need a Fed Chairman with independence and without any cronyist ties whatsoever to these insiders.

[vert1276]

8. that still doesnt answer my question of how the fed makes the rich, richer

thats because the answer is THEY DONT. While I will agree QE2 was not needed and a bad idea as most economist would agree (me being one of those economist) That still doesn't change the fact the Fed doesn't make the rich, richer! The Fed takes money from the treasury (as a loan) and goes out into the SECONDARY(very important) market and buys US treasuries to back that loan from the treasury with and asset (this is how the US is dollar is "backed"...it is "backed" with US treasuries)

So now that we cleared that up.....let me ask you, if you owned a 20k US treasury bond and the Fed bought it off you for 20K. would that make you richer? Or would you just be exchanging one asset for another?

So the crazy anti Fed conspiracy nuts are just that, they are NUTS!!!! They dont understand banking or economics. It is purely a fear of the unknown is all!

[howaboutme]

9. You do understand how the discount window works?

Hand out unlimited money at virtually 0% interest and even a monkey can get rich. That is the true gift horse that benefits the banker elite and it is obligating Americans and destroying the dollar and this doesn't even touch the negative currency implications of QE2.

Thanks to a bankster beholden Congress, Geithner, Obama and the influence of the Federal Reserve, the same too big to fail investment banks that were at the heart of our economic problems were handed the keys to the printing presses and public tax trough with virtually free unlimited credit because they were encouraged to become commercial banks with access to the Feds discount window. Instead of being held accountable and required to face liquidation they and their principals were given free money and the opportunity to make even more enormous profits.

If not for the media covering up the incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve, US Treasury and Wall Street, Americans en mass would be on Wall St with pitchforks and bonfires.

The Federal Reserve and those they help at our inevitable cost needs fully audited and the results made publicly available. The Feds mission needs to be reduced to keeping the dollar strong and keeping inflation under control, and not have the current discretionary policies that benefit an elitist few.

[vert1276]

10. I dont understand what you are trying to say

who is handing out the money at virtually 0% interest? The treasury or the Fed? The treasury is loaning money to the Fed at 0% interest this is true. But that is to increase the money supply to increase economic growth (the monetary policy of the USA). As an economy grows you HAVE TO increase the money supply. Now you may disagree on how much and how fast to increase it but thats a different debate.

Now, about the discount window at the Fed. I think you know just a little to much about this to get yourself in trouble, as they say. But not enough to fully understand it. FYI I am a working economist and have been one for banks and private equity firms so take that for what its worth to you, but im not just talking out of my azz. And I did almost take a job at the Fed in Seattle after WAMU went down(the bank I was an economist for) but the pay sucked so I went to work for a private equality firm instead LOL :)

Well before I can totally explain why you were wrong about the discount window I have to start at the beginning. Why the Fed was created? 2 main reasons really first and most importantly to prevent bank runs and second to standardize the currency. Before the Fed in 1913 there were something like 20,000 different bank notes in circulation in the US. This was hurting the economy because it created 20,000 different currency exchanges. So when the Fed was started by law they are the only bank that can issue bank notes. Now if you became a member bank of the Fed (there are like 7,800 banks in the US only like 2,700 are members of the Fed, but all NATIONAL banks are required to be by law) you have to give them 6% of your cash to hold 3% up front and 3% in reserve that the Fed can demand at any point. This creates a huge "Kittie" of cash the Fed is holding of member banks. This is so they can prevent bank runs. A bank is required to have a 10% reserve ratio by law (in some cases less then that if the bank is small) So if a Bank has a liquidity issue (not a solvency issue, this is KEY) meaning their assets are greater then their liabilities. But they just don't have enough cash to meet there on demand accounts (depositors at the bank)they can call up the Fed and say "hey send us over some cash" this would be "going to the discount window" at the Fed. It works just like a pawn shop on a repo agreement meaning the Fed hands over the cash (the banks own money really and the money of MANY other member banks) and in exchange the bank hands over collateral. Traditionally that collateral had to be very safe, like only a select few AAA rated bonds. They couldn't give the Fed Dotcom stock as collateral lol. Although with the banking crisis the Fed has loosened up what they will take as collateral at the discount window, but they are still AAA rated bonds. Now the Fed (the discount window) is the "lender of last resort" the banks don't want to go there to get money. They are for sure not going there to get money to re lend out. There would be no point to that because they have to hand over an asset. That would be like going to the pawn shop to pawn your $1000 ring to get a $1000 bucks in cash to go out and buy another ring lol plus on top of that you have to pay the pawn shop (and the Fed) interest on that $1000. The first choice of the bank would to go to another bank for the loan they need to shore up their liquidity issues (because they wont have to hand over an asset). At somewhere close to the Fed "target rate" the Fed sets the "target rate" this is the rate they want the banks to lend to each other at on a 24 basis.The rate they are paying at the discount window is the "discount rate" and traditionally that is a higher rate then the "Target rate" because the Fed wants a bank to go on the open market and get a loan from another bank not come to them (although this is ALL screwed up right now and the discount rate is lower then the target rate with the banking crisis but it will be back to normal soon). When you hear on the news "the Fed is lowering interest rates" they are talking about the "target rate" how they do this is they get a loan from the treasury (basically the Fed pays the treasury a small fee to print money and give it to them) but like a said this is a LOAN is not free money and to offset this loan on the Feds balance sheet they go out and buy US treasuries gaining an asset to offset it(like I said in the other post this his how the US dollar is backed by treasuries not gold anymore) on the secondary market (that is key!! they are buying them on the secondary market that means from you and me and investment firms ect ect. If they were going to the primary market it wouldn't work. They are not going to US treasure bond auctions and buying NEW issued US bonds. That would mean the Fed is just borrowing money from the treasury then just giving it right back to the government at a bond auction LOL) the people selling them get the cash and HOPEFULLY put it in the bank increasing the banks liquidity, meaning they have more cash to lend meaning they can loan it to other banks at lower rate. Of course they do the exact opposite to raise rates. SO I guess the whole point of this long post is to say when a bank goes to the discount window at the Fed for a loan the money they are getting is basically their OWN money back, not "printed free money from the treasury" or "tax payer money" ect ect.

Now I'm not talking about TARP here, that is a totally separate issue we can go into if you want. I was just explaining how the discount window works at the Fed.

Now when you said in your post "Instead of being held accountable and required to face liquidation they and their principals were given free money and the opportunity to make even more enormous profits." That is a 100% false statement. If a bank is facing liquidation that means it's INSOLVENT! meaning it liabilities are greater then its assets, so even if every asset it had was paid (loans it has outstanding to people) there still would not be enough money to pay the on demand accounts (the people who deposited money in the bank) In this case they don't get a loan from the Fed discount window they go into receivership!!! Meaning the Fed (if its a member bank) and the FDIC come in and shut them down!! Give all the depositors their money back and sell off the banks assets and try to come as close as they can to breaking even in the end.

This was a VERY long post and I'm not gonna proof read so don't rip me apart on grammar ok lol? And I hope that cleared some stuff up :) have a nice day!